Penalty Administration????

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Late to the party, but you have to administer the penalty for each foul in the same order in which the fouls occurred. The penalty for a technical foul is two FTs and throw-in opportunity at the division line. The subsequent shooting foul doesn't erase of supersede the penalty for the technical foul, it just comes next and the rules outline the procedure for resuming play following FTs for a personal foul. That procedure doesn't include returning to the penalty for another foul or awarding possession to either team because of a previous foul. I agree that possession is a big part of the penalty for a technical foul, but with regard to the enforcement of penalties for fouls, no preferential status is given to any type of foul over another in the rules. The only clearly stated guide for this situation is to penalize in the order the fouls occurred.

Nicely said.

And the rules cover this perfectly....order of occurrence. That covers everything. Unless an exception is stated, there is no reason to do otherwise.

The throwin after the T isn't so much part of the penalty but the method of resuming play after the T. However, if there is another penalty to be administered, you don't resume play but move on to that penalty. Just like any other infraction.

Example: The penalty for traveling, OOB, etc. is a throwin for he other team. But, if a foul occurs before that throwin is started, you skip the throwin for the traveling and move onto the foul.

Why would it be any different for two fouls?

The fundamental point of this situation is that technicals are no different than other fouls regarding the order of penalty enforcement. When there is a sequence of infractions (violations or fouls, personal or technical), the last one to occur determines how play is ultimately resumed.

[johnny d]

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

Johnny,
I understand your reasoning and the sentiment that the Team should also get the ball. However, the language in the rules says the "fouls are penalized in order they occurred." That is the only language dealing with the situation. It is the order of the fouls that matters under the language of the rules. As I said to Jeff, we will agree to disagree on this one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

As I said to Jeff, we will agree to disagree on this one.

I doubt this will even happen anyway for us to have much of a disagreement in the real world.

If this happens let me know.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I doubt this will even happen anyway for us to have much of a disagreement in the real world.

If this happens let me know.

Peace

Did you not read my first post? It did happen. That is why I brought it up. The person it happened to consulted me on whether they handled it correctly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Did you not read my first post? It did happen. That is why I brought it up. The person it happened to consulted me on whether they handled it correctly.

Yes I read your first post, but it did not happen to you and you were describing what happened to them. If it happens to BigCat or anyone else, then maybe I will worry about this situation in that kind of detail. I doubt seriously this is happening very often to anyone else.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes I read your first post, but it did not happen to you and you were describing what happened to them. If it happens to BigCat or anyone else, then maybe I will worry about this situation in that kind of detail. I doubt seriously this is happening very often to anyone else.

Peace

SMH. So, it has to happen to a specific set of people before it is a valid play?

It happened in a game with two state tournament level officials with players obviously playing at or above the rim. They asked me for a reason....they were not certain they did it right they respect my rules knowledge.

There is no need for you to refuse to accept the facts unless you just don't want to admin you were wrong..

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

i am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team a the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so i am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, i am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

msu.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

1. Look up the difference between "access" and "assess."
2. You are completely wrong under NFHS rules. The timing of the action determines when an infraction occurs, not when an official elects to penalize it.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Look up the difference between "access" and "assess."
2. You are completely wrong under NFHS rules. The timing of the action determines when an infraction occurs, not when an official elects to penalize it.

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

[OKREF]

Well, if this ever happens to me in a game, I know I have the rule book and I can quote it to any coach who questions the way I would penalize. The rule book says to penalize in the order of occurrence. It doesn't say, anywhere that I can find, to shoot the technical foul second. In this situation. This play is different because we have a foul involving a shooter.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 8-6-2

If there is a multiple throw and both a single personal and single technical foul are involved, the tries shall be attempted in the order in which the related fouls occurred, and if the last try is for a single technical foul, or intentional or flagrant personal foul, the ball shall be put in play by a throw-in.

This doesn't really solve the argument directly. But, I find it curious that they specify how play should resume if the last foul is the technical, but they do not specify how to resume if the last foul is not the technical. That leaves me to conclude that you line them up for the PF and play on. Otherwise, they would just say that play is resumed by a throw-in regardless of the order of the fouls.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Altor

This doesn't really solve the argument directly. But, I find it curious that they specify how play should resume if the last foul is the technical, but they do not specify how to resume if the last foul is not the technical. That leaves me to conclude that you line them up for the PF and play on. Otherwise, they would just say that play is resumed by a throw-in regardless of the order of the fouls.

Altor cited 8-6-2 prior to his comment above…And actually, it is the section that DIRECTLY addresses the situation.

"If there is a multiple throw and both a single personal and single technical foul are involved, THE TRIES SHALL BE ATTEMPTED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THE RELATED FOULS OCCURRED, and IF THE LAST TRY IS FOR A SINGLE TECHNICAL FOUL, OR INTENTIONAL OR FLAGRANT PERSONAL FOUL, THE BALL SHALL BE PUT IN PLAY BY A THROW-IN."

It is Crystal clear that fouls are penalized in the order they occur... and if the last foul is a T, Intentional or Flagrant then the ball will be put in play by a throw in. The Technical foul in our OP was first, the foul on the shooter in the OP was last and was NOT a T, or intentional, or flagrant. line them up and shoot. The NF has told us what to do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

You can't apply these two situations. The rules are very clear on how the OP should be handled, and any exceptions in the case book need to specifically apply if you're going to disregard rules.

And dispense with the insults. They add nothing to the discussion. If you have any questions on this, feel free to write me privately.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

You can't apply these two situations. The rules are very clear on how the OP should be handled, and any exceptions in the case book need to specifically apply if you're going to disregard rules.

And dispense with the insults. They add nothing to the discussion. If you have any questions on this, feel free to write me privately.

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it. Just taking one statement that is a fundamental and every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second and even gives us some leeway to ignore an infraction until play has continued. Again, if the situation is clear than the NF would have made it clear. Just like you complain about the BC violations rules that you suggest (and I agree with you) are not without conflict, but we also know how the NF wants the rules to apply in that situation. Right now this causes confusion as a part of the penalty is not enforced if I do what some have suggested.

Peace